[Advaita-l] Accounting for Brahman appearing as the world

[V Subrahmanian]

An explanation attributed to Swami Vivekananda:  A fish caught in a net can
escape in two ways: it can squeeze itself and get out of a hole in the net.
It can expand so big as to come out bursting the net. The first one is
reducing one's ego completely, bhakti. The second one is expanding one's
ego so large as to loose all pettiness. This is jnana.

vs

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> A good Upama will help us to understand better. Rivers like Ganga and
> Kaveri will join the ocean. When the rivers join the ocean there is no more
> Ganga and Kaveri in the ocean. We cannot say this water here in the ocean
> is Ganga and this water is Kaveri water. Everything is ocean only.
> Therefore the Ganga and Kaveri are lost in the ocean and no more. This is
> Baadha. But we can say also Ganga and Kaveri have merged into ocean. They
> have become One with ocean. This is Aikya. Similarly Aham Brahma is
> explained in two ways. Aham can get lost and wiped out and Brahman only
> remains. Or we can say Aham has merged with Brahman. Both are correct.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:01 AM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear Raghav ji,
> >
> > With reference to the Tat, the sense gained generally is: a saguṇa entity
> > that is the Lord of the universe being the cause, sustainer, etc. This is
> > also actually Chit alone.
> >
> > regards
> > subbu
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste Subbu ji
> > > Thank you for the explanations.
> > > You are saying that the resolution of jagat as brahma (by bAdha) is not
> > > entirely different from 'conventional ahaM' resolving in to its
> > > adhiShThAnaM brahma in the case where ahaM and brahma are having the
> > > primary meaning of cid-avivikta-abhAsaH where the primary meaning is
> > > *entirely* given up through jahallakShaNA and in such a case we could
> > hold
> > > that bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam does indeed hold  in this 'second case' ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just need some more clarity about the word cid-avivikta-abhAsaH ... Or
> to
> > > put it a little in detail below
> > >
> > > On 10-Sep-2017 10:54 PM, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > I think the various views/understandings expressed in this thread can
> be
> > > reconciled.  In the book 'Sridakṣiṇāmūrtistotram Vol.1, on page 506 us
> a
> > > subtitle: 6.6.14 Interpetation of the Mahavakya - Jahallakṣaṇā. There
> the
> > > method is stated thus:
> > >
> > > //In the school which speaks in terms of the ābhāsavāda prakriyā, the
> > > primary senses of 'That' and 'thou' are taken either as ābhā-aviviktam
> > > chaitanyam, i.e, Consciousness as not distinguished from the apparent
> > > consciousness or as chidaviviktābhāsaḥ, i.e., the apparent
> consciousness
> > as
> > > not distinguished from the Consciousness, as pointed out by the
> > > Nyāyaratnāvalī on the Siddhāntabindu (1). In the first case, the
> > Mahāvākya
> > > is to be understood by having recourse to partial abandonment i.e., the
> > > bhāgatyāgalakṣaṇā as has been delineated
> > >
> > > In the second case,
> > > however, it is to be understood by having recourse to the jahallakṣaṇā
> > > i.e., the total abandonment of the primary senses of the words 'That'
> and
> > > 'thou' by pointing to the Consciousness that is the Substratum.
> > >
> > >
> > > This second case is not clear to me ... Tvam pada primary meaning being
> > > cid-avivikta-abhAsaH  'apparent consciousness not distinguished from
> > > Consciousness' ,  is comprehensible  but what would be the primary
> > meaning
> > > of the word 'That' in the second case, 'apparent consciousness not
> > > distinguished from Consciousness'? This phrase is not clear esp. in the
> > > context of 'That'.
> > >
> > > Also on a different note, isn't jahallakShaNA also used in the case
> where
> > > 'tvam pada' is still having paricchinatvaM while tat-pada is nirguNam
> > > brahma?
> > >
> > > On
> > > sublation of what is illusorily regarded in parlance as the meaning of
> > the
> > > word 'thou', the Substratum that is the Consciousness, stands out. So
> > also
> > > in the case of the meaning of the word 'That.'//
> > >
> > >
> > > It is this sublation, bādha, that is meant by 'apavāda' in the BSB
> 3.3.9
> > > (that I had cited earlier). The Bhāṣyaratnaprabhā says:
> > > बुद्धिपूर्वकाभेदारोपोऽध्यासः,
> > > बाधोऽपवादः.  The wrong identity with body-mind complex is given up
> > through
> > > right knowledge and the substratum Chit becomes apparent. The
> contingency
> > > of 'aham nāsmi' too does not arise.
> > >
> > >
> > > This I understand is the same as sarvam
> > > (jagat) brahma where the jagat is negated and the Substratum Brahman
> > alone
> > > stands out. The difference between bhāgatyāga.. and jahallak....is that
> > in
> > > the former the adhyasta part is given up, tyakta and the anandhyasta
> part
> > > is retained. In the latter there is no recognition of parts (bhāga) and
> > the
> > > entire anubhūta vastu is given up which by itself gives place for the
> > > substratum to come to the limelight.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now my doubt is clearer...I can understand tvam-shabda the anubhUta
> vastu
> > > being,  'given up for' / resolving in to,  its adhiSThAnaM but what
> would
> > > it mean to say that tat-padam or brahma as *anubhUta vastu* is given
> up?
> > >
> > > This is in agreement with what is
> > > articulated by Sri SSS:  <<  The way the understanding of the nature “
> > this
> > > stalk of a tree is a man only “ by a person completely negates the idea
> > of
> > > the tree stalk, the  understanding  “I am Brahman “ completely negates
> > the
> > > idea of “ I “( aham )  ( in anAtma, anything else ) >>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Om
> > > Raghav
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the difference between the two lakṣaṇās lies in the way the
> > > Acharyas have presented the thought; the end-result does not changing
> > >
> > >
> > > warm regards
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>